I Have No Idea: On Sarah Palin

We've been hearing a lot about false choices these days, especially from the man in the White House. Barack Obama seemingly loves mentioning the many "false choices" made by his predecessor's administration. And I have shown (see link above) that Mr. Obama fails to see the irony in his pop-pronouncements on false choices, since, according to his wife, his very career is built upon a patently false choice.

In keeping with Mr. Obama's penchant for criticizing false choices that are not false and for creating "true" choices that are indeed false, the Democratic Party's statement yesterday regarding Sarah Palin's sudden announcement of her resignation from her Alaska governor's seat is exemplary:

Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long shot national political ambitions or she simply can’t handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down. Either way - her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today. [emphasis added]

The great and logical minds of the DNC have no problem creating such a false Either/Or, in large part because such minds are neither great nor logical. If I were to advise my readers to meditate on the DNC statement as if it contained profound religious truths -- I am not and it doesn't -- I am certain that readers would have some experience approaching epiphany: The Democrats who issued this statement are incredibly stupid and vapid. And petty.

Just think: the DNC has NO IDEA -- none! -- as to why Ms. Palin has suddenly resigned. And yet, like spiritualists probing through animal scat, they've divined the reasons behind Ms. Palin's actions: She is either overly-ambitious or she is incompetent. But note what the DNC has actually said (and they don't even realize it): Her resignation is solely due to her being a fool. There is no real or even false Either/Or here. Since Ms. Palin's alleged bid for national office represents a "long shot," at least according to the DNC, she is a fool for reaching well beyond her merits. And since she is leaving office because her job has become too difficult, she was a fool to have ever thought she merited the governorship. Really, the DNC's syllogism is dizzying in its rigor:

A. Either p or p
B. p
_______
C. Therefore, p

What is amazing is that Ms. Palin's alleged "pattern of bizarre behavior," as the DNC so confidently puts it, has not been shown to be either a pattern or bizarre. But the Democrats' demonstrable fixation on and targeting of all things Palin indicate a clear pattern of bizarre behavior among Democrats who accuse her of behaving in a bizarre pattern.

____________________

WHAT IS MS. PALIN THINKING?

If this question can be asked without resorting to the cheap-shot answer -- Ms. Palin is not thinking because she can't think -- then it must be asked in humility: As of right now, no one but Ms. Palin and her husband know what she's thinking. I have no idea what's going on, do you?

I think a sane person of decent intellect and breeding, possessing even a modicum of compassion, would choose reticence and not pompous declamations upon hearing of Ms. Palin's resignation. Is it not possible that she is ill? Is it not at all possible that someone in her family is ill? Perhaps her marriage is in disrepair; perhaps the battering she has personally experienced from the media and the DNC has truly taken its toll on her children, and thus, on her. And if the latter is the case, then Ms. Palin's decision shows an immense amount of competence and gives the lie to the assertion she can't handle the office of governor. A good governor would indeed resign to protect her family from the unjust abuse that constantly comes her way.

I am not suggesting here she has not some other plans. I am not defending or promoting her ambitions (or lack thereof). My fascination, really, has always been about how her enemies -- and they are enemies -- perceive her, and how they've treated her (and her family). In fact, I will admit that Ms. Palin's decision prima facie spells doom.

But I am also quick to point out that if the media and the DNC pile on top of her and there is some sad story behind this decision; or if Ms. Palin makes some stunning announcement in the coming days about an appointment or position that is truly to her political advantage, both the media and the DNC will look incredibly foolish, weak, and, as already said, petty.

I can't help admit that when I read and hear the ridiculously over-wrought and presumptuous criticisms of Ms. Palin, I am hoping she gets the last laugh.

We'll see, of course. But in the scheme of things, at least for me, what Sarah Palin does or does not do matters little. This is not to say she is not important. It is merely an admission about what fills my life. And what does not fill it.

Bottom line: I am hoping that there is not some sort of tragedy behind her announcement. You would think that would be everyone's hope in America. Sadly, it is not.

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Newsflash: Sarah Palin Is A Politician; Surprises New York Times

There was an amazing article in Saturday's New York Times. Perhaps you heard about it. Maybe you even read it.

I read it, and I found it amusing.

The story -- as if you could not have guessed -- focuses on Sarah Palin's governorship of Alaska. The portrait it paints of Alaska's beloved governor is apparently quite controversial. Here's perhaps the most damning passage, which just happens to be the lead:

Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency. [emphasis added]

The editorial slant of the Times' lead is hardly worth noting, since the Times can't help itself. The lead is really a broad and silly assertion based in pure fantasy: if you read the story to its end, you will discover nothing that justifies the Times' conclusion that Ms. Palin lives a certain way; that she follows a maxim. It's obscenely overwrought.

What we find instead of journalism is the Times damning a politician for being something apparently really bad, namely, a politician.

Only a naif would think that a governor in a small state like Alaska (demographically speaking) would not appoint some friends to decent administrative posts. That Franci Havemeister is not really sitting atop a very high position -- she's merely the director of the Division of Agriculture, which falls under the direction of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources' head Tom Irwin -- is hardly alarming. Nor is it all alarming that a high school friend might be picked by a governor for a certain post.

Let me state that I can think of at least five people from my small high-school class I could easily choose to serve the state of NH effectively were I this state's governor. One of my old classmates is the executor of my estate; I did not choose him because we are chums -- we're not really, or I should say that we definitely were not in high school. I chose him because he is excellent at what he does. I have no problem choosing good people, especially if I KNOW them. In fact, it makes sense to choose those one knows, especially if those folks are competent or excellent. Amazingly, Sarah Palin is damned for appointing people with whom she is familiar.

Note that the Times never mentions whether any appointment made by Governor Palin to any position has wreaked havoc on the political or social fabric of Alaska. No list of complaints against the head of the Division of Agriculture; no laundry list of corruption or ineptitude follows a single paragraph in the Times. No, what is apparently so appalling is that a governor would appoint a handful of friends to relatively low positions in the state bureaucracy who were GOOD at their jobs. (For perspective, there are state police patrolmen in Massachusetts who earn far more per year than Alaska's director of agriculture.)

I would note one (at least) weird bit of journalism in the Times passage quoted above, and it has to do with Ms. Havemeister's "having cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency." It's weird when set against the whole process of appointments; my understanding is that an appointment is just that, and it is not the sort of thing to which one submits an application and résumé in order to be hired. In other words, contrary to the impression given readers by the Times' abuse of language, Ms. Havemeister would not have announced to a governor that she was qualified to do anything merely because of a childhood love. Nowhere does the Times contextualize Ms. Havemeister's words, words perhaps uttered to a group of school children during a class trip to her office. Who knows? The Times doesn't care about accuracy here. Its purpose is not to inform, but to sway.

What else does the Times neglect? (Note what I've suggested in my question: the Times neglects things. How sad that what has been considered the most important paper in the country actually does neglect fundamental things.)

For example, it neglects to tell us what Ms. Havemeister's full qualifications actually are; there is not even a mention of her education. But the paper also neglects to tell us what Ms. Havemeister's job requires; I look at the Division of Agriculture's homepage and it sounds to me like someone with a background in real estate and small business might be able handle the job quite well, particularly since agriculture in Alaska is all about land and small business. At least I learn from the Times that Ms. Havemeister has a background in real estate, though what sort of background (a wildly successful one?) is too much for the paper to explore.

The Times also fails to mention whether former Alaskan governors have appointed friends; it fails to explore if any governors in America have classmates from high school in their administrations. Perhaps Governor Palin's actions are actually quite modest, with other administrations hiring far more "friends of the governor." Clearly Gov. Palin's appointments and actions have not been unwelcome or detrimental, since Governor Palin enjoys astronomical bi-partisan approval ratings.

Here's another very odd passage from the Times' report:

The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.

I hope you see why this is odd. First, the paragraph makes a rather odd leap. It has "Mr. Bitney," a former JUNIOR high school bandmate as somehow connected to Ms. Palin's HIGH school graduating class, and that this weird leap and dubious connection amount to proof of cronyism (or so they imply). The implication that Mr. Bitney is where he is in politics today because he played in a band with Ms. Palin in seventh grade is absurd and sophomoric. Second, the Times has already told us in paragraph 3 that

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

The Times, apparently, cannot tell how many of Gov. Palin's former classmates work in her administration, which is very odd, considering the paper has a "veritable directory of state government" at its disposal. Can a "veritable directory of state government" only have six names in it? Are there only six Wasilla High School students running the entire Alaskan government?

I admit that my questions are partly facetious, but only in part. The fact is quite overwhelming that we are witnessing the "greatest" newspaper in America at its very best, doing its very best to damn a Republican vice-presidential candidate, and yet in the process proving its profound ineptitude. Is this the best the Times can do? Is this all the dirt that's fit to print about Ms. Palin -- that she behaves like a politician, one so down and dirty most Alaskans love her? This is damning? Of Ms. Palin, or the New York Times?

And I have to say that I love this [emphasis added]:

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

Say it isn't so! A chief executive huddled with -- no! -- her husband "who is not a state employee"?! You mean she had the audacity to run Alaska's state house like, I don't know, Bill Clinton ran his White House, "huddling" with his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was "not a state employee" at the time? How shameful!

Lastly, check this out:

[...]four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

That this detail is mere gossip does not ruin the fact that it is plainly funny. Why? Well, because if this is Ms. Whitstine's blog, then I would ask her to quit blogging, too. (I am surprised the Times did not tell us the name of Ms. Whitstines's blog, or provide a link to it for its online readers.)

By the way, I have a message for Ms. Frye: On behalf of bloggers everywhere, thank you! (I am sorry, Ms. Whitstine.)

The Times has proven itself once again unable to escape its current well-established legacy of mediocrity. It's still the sort of paper you read in public, but now only discreetly. It's a gossip sheet, really. And gossip is only sexy for a little while. Then it just gets old. Old, and gray, and really annoying.

(Psst! Listen to this. You know what this article is really saying? Sarah Palin is like George W. Bush! Shhh! No, no. I am not kidding you! What? How dare you suggest Ms. Havemeister has more executive experience than Barack Obama. Shame on you!)

©2008. All rights reserved.

Geography Lessons, And More On "Foreign Policies"

I can't resist.

What I am about to tell you is absolutely true.

On the afternoon of the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995, I was taking a much needed break from my newspaper job. The break was much needed, I can assure you, because the news of the day was really quite stressful.

While I was standing around the counter of the local market gabbing with a knot of men about the horrific tragedy, a customer came in who had not yet heard the news. Once he understood that we were not joking, he became irate, shouting, "What the hell do they think is? This ain't no f***ing foreign country!" With that, he stormed off.

If you have not yet watched the Sean Coombs video about "foreign policies," then you won't completely understand why I have recalled here the man and his exclamation that America is "no f***ing foreign country."

The broader context into which I want to fit my remarks is the one in which it is asserted Gov. Sarah Palin is not fit for office because she has not traveled enough outside the United States. No one knows exactly how much travel time or mileage are a prerequisite for the vice presidency, but it should probably be as much as Abraham Lincoln's many international adventures.

But let's talk, really talk, about Alaska. Did you know that Alaska is the northernmost and westernmost and easternmost point in the United States? Wait. Did you even know that Alaska is part of the United States? Of course you did. But if 70% of America's 18-24 year-olds can't find New Jersey on a map, then I think it safe to say that a number of Democrats who oppose Gov. Palin's nomination only recently learned that Alaska is actually a place, and not a pun with Delaware and Idaho. I mean, if Alaska isn't at the eastern end of the nearest mall, what good is it?

I wonder how many Americans know that Hawaii, Barack Obama's birthplace, is the southernmost state in the US. Perhaps it doesn't matter. But it does mean that Barack Obama is the truest southerner to be on a presidential ticket in a long, long time; he makes Bill Clinton seem like a Laplander (perhaps Laplander borders on the obscene in this particular application, or Lapplication; but at least Clinton was known to have traveled abroad ... or two. Vicious, scurrilous pun, I know.)

So, I think we can conclude several things. Observing that Sean Coombs' pro-Obama, anti-McCain rant comes across a tad provincial and that New Jersey appears to be something some Americans might purchase at the nearest Sports Authority, we can conclude that America is indeed one big, stinkin' foreign country. When you add to the discussion the fact that Gov. Palin's enticing coordinates of easternmost, westernmost and northernmost make her unbelievably foreign (and therefore wildly exotic and desirable), we have proven that she is eminently qualified to co-lead the two -- heck, the many! -- Americas and the many foreign countries of which this particular melting pot is composed. She abounds in foreign policies. Just ask the cosmopolitan Democrats.

©Contratimes/2008. All Rights Reserved.

Touché! McCain's Audacious Pick

I was completely out of the media loop yesterday, having left all the political hoopla aside so I could attend to an important and wonderful domestic event. So by the time I learned of Sen. John McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, the chattering classes were already deep into their analysis. In fact, the only thing I first gleaned from the car radio was that a woman had been picked; being on the road, I called my wife to ask her what she could find out for me. In seconds, she was reading online news accounts: in one ear I had news, in the other, there was fevered reaction.

In haste, because I haven't much time this morning (and because I slept in far too late), I would like to simply state why I think Gov. Palin is a brilliant political choice.

1. Instantly, any media bump the Democrats hoped to gain from Senator Barack Obama's pre-inaugural inauguration in Denver was instantly flattened. The Agent Of Change quickly became stale news.
2. Gov. Palin instantly nullifies the "attack dog" role Senator Joe Biden might have played in the two parties' one vice presidential debate. Sen. Biden's notorious nastiness has been neutered, so to speak. There is no way he can snap his mighty and garrulous jaws at the heels of a pretty, youngish mother of five children, one of which is about to be deployed to Iraq while another has Down Syndrome.
   
3. Sen. Obama's choice of Sen. Biden was a safe and necessary pick: everyone agrees that Sen. Obama's choice lent "gray-haired gravitas" to an otherwise airy ticket. And nearly any honest soul knows that Sen. Biden is anything but "change." The only ticket that really represents "change [voters] can believe" is the McCain-Palin ticket. Sen. McCain must showcase that he is the old veteran leader who has a proven track record, while Ms. Palin is the "new face" of the Republican Party with skill and vision: she's the future, not the past. Clearly, Sen. Obama's message is that the future he envisions is rooted in the more-of-the-same moribund past, that rather ancient and tired past represented by the Congressional-lifer Joe Biden.
   
4. The Sarah Palin story is every bit as compelling as Mr. Obama's rise to fame. Maybe even more so. Her's is a Cinderella story. To women, well, this sort of thing speaks volumes. Add to the fray the fact that her story through the "glass ceiling" makes Hillary Clinton's story sound positively bland by comparison, and you've delivered a deft blow to a lot of Democratic and feminist mythology. It reminds people that for a long time now, Republicans have had powerful women serving at the highest reaches of government.
   
5. Sarah Palin instantly embodies the pro-life movement in all its intellectual honesty: she walks the talk. Her having a child with special needs drives this home particularly well. It will be hard to find fault with her on issues of family, child-rearing and domesticity.
   
6. With Gov. Palin's son heading off to Iraq, and John McCain reportedly having a family member in harm's way as well, the whole "chicken hawk" lunacy of the left asphyxiates. (Mr. Biden also has family heading into military conflict.)
   
7. The Wall Street Journal reports that Gov. Palin has been a thorn in the side to, that's right, Big Oil, in her home state. Interesting.
8. If reports are accurate that Gov. Palin rejected living in Alaska's governor's mansion; that she found other jobs for the domestic staff to which she was entitled to as governor, and that she chose to live at home, forsaking the governor's limo so she could drive herself to work, well, I can't say enough as to how good that is for Sen. McCain and the Republicans. That sort of story is legendary: it is the stuff that shatters many Democratic mythologies. Gov. Palin LIVES her ideals. She does not promise them. Unlike Barack Obama's resumé, which is one of the future, her's is one that is present, real, and tangible (as is John McCain's).
   

These eight things, at the very least, prove that Mr. McCain is in this race to win. As they might say in South Boston, his choice was "wicked shrewd." The only danger for Gov. Palin is that she comes across as a wicked shrew. I doubt she will. From what I've seen, she'd have to morph into something very different to ever earn the labels of shrew, harridan, termagant. She seems utterly likable, though time will tell.

Bottom line: McCain proves himself a brilliant strategist. He's got game, I'll give him that.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.